Boy Scouts Version 3.0

The Thinking Housewife had a post titled The Boy Scouts – R.I.P. It was about their decision to allow openly homosexual males into the organization as Scouts (though not as leaders – at least not yet). While the entire post was excellent, the final paragraph is what I want to focus on here:

The Boy Scouts is no more, but there are still boys. There are still vast woods and lots of sticks with which to build fires. There are still plenty of good men who want to introduce boys to manhood. One doesn’t need a corporate-funded super-organization to take a pack of boys into the woods and learn about survival. It’s time to begin anew.

I have titled this post “Boy Scouts Version 3.0″ to identify what comes next. I was fortunate enough to have been a Boy Scout during version 1.0 – before political correctness did what it always does and destroy the traditional culture. I was in Scouting in the early 1960’s. What we are seeing now is version 2.0, but it won’t be long before 2.0 will be so different from 1.0 as to be unrecognizable as the same organization. In time, the Boy Scouts will be much like a church that decides it is more important to please Man than to obey God. The good people begin to leave as the worldly people take over. The process accelerates until it becomes little more than a social club for nice people.

What happens to those who leave because Scouting has become what it was intended to protect boys and young men from? The Thinking Housewife is correct:
• There are still plenty of good men who want to help boys become men.
• There is no requirement for a massive organization and corporate sponsorship.

9 Responses to Boy Scouts Version 3.0

You talked about how the Southern stereotype is that we are all NASCAR-loving rednecks –which is what the the media portrays Southerners as– and how that is not always true. What I got from this article is that the scouts who are homosexual are all stereotypical ninny boys who act like girls –which is what the media portrays homosexuals as– and would not be capable of becoming men. While I fall under that first stereotype mentioned about being a NASCAR-loving redneck, I am not a stereotypical homosexual. Many homosexuals act just like heterosexuals, and you would not be able to deduce that they are homosexual. Implying that homosexuals can not become men is very insulting. Now, I am far from being politically correct; I favor historical correctness. Just because a boy is openly homosexual does not mean he is not capable of taking on and succeeding in the challenges that come with being in the Boy Scouts. My father was in the Boy Scouts, and I would have loved to have been in the Boy Scouts. Sadly, it is too late for me as I have now graduated and am about to turn eighteen years old. However, my sexuality has no effect on my outdoorsman-like personality. The Boy Scouts is a good Christian organization, and I am a good Christian (Roman Catholic) young man. I assure you that those young scouts will act no different, heterosexual or not.

Andre, Thank you for stopping by and commenting, but I think you’re missing the point of the whole controversy. I don’t think anyone is saying that homosexuals are incapable of becoming men – even very masculine men. The problem is that the Boy Scouts were founded on some very specific principles – “To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight” – “morally straight” being a key point. In addition, the Scout Oath begins with “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God…” The Bible – God’s literal words to Man – is very clear that the practice of homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination to God. I fully understand and appreciate that one has very little control over their desires; however, one does have complete control over their actions. One can have homosexual desires and still be “morally straight”, but ONLY if those desires are not acted out in any way, including openly admitting those desires. For that reason, any tolerance of homosexuality in the Boy Scouts – or any other organization that adheres to a similar code of moral conduct of Biblical teachings – is wrong and must not be tolerated.

The answer is NOT for homosexuals to force their way into the Boy Scouts, but to form their own organization where they are accepted and embraced for who and what they are. That, sir, is the very heart of the conflict. The homosexual agenda is a political and social agenda which has the destruction of traditional Christian culture as its ultimate goal. That does NOT mean that you or any other individual homosexual has that as a goal, but by tolerating the actions of your activists in matters like the Boy Scout issue, you share the blame.

Let me point out that while homosexuality has been around for as long as Man has existed on this earth, it was quietly tolerated because it could be ignored. By pushing it into our faces and demanding that the rest of society tolerate, accept, and even embrace it is the cause of all the turmoil and anger. With very few exceptions, societies have tolerated it by just turning a blind eye to it. If simply the practice of homosexuality were the real objective, then that social agreement would have continued and homosexuals would have lived as they wish, quietly and at peace with the rest of society. Homosexuals have brought this on themselves by the arrogant demand that “You WILL accept and embrace homosexuality.”

You have no right to demand that others accommodate your beliefs when it violates their beliefs. On the other hand, you have every right to associate with whoever you want and to form your own organizations that meet your own needs.

I am glad we are on the same page on some points. I, for one, do not force my homosexuality on people. As I said, many of us are just like your average heterosexuals, and you would not assume that we are homosexuals. I have dreams and aspirations to become famous things (country singer, NASCAR driver), and I am sure people would expect to me do inspirational work for the LGBTQ community because I would be an openly homosexual country singer/NASCAR driver. That is just not me, though. I will be an activist, but it will be for the good of Southern heritage… which is how I came across this wonderful website. I must give you a brief thanks for what you do here.

Obviously, we are two different Christians. You are a Born-Again, and I am a Roman Catholic. You take your Bible literally, as I do with mine. I cannot acknowledge or agree that me being homosexual or homosexuality alone is an abomination to God because I put my life in His hands and ultimately live to serve Him. He has a plan for me, and I reckon my sexuality must be a part of His plan. I may like guys, but I treat them like any good faithful-hearted devout Christian man would treat a woman. That includes proper courtship if the Lord wishes, a Church marriage if He allows me to, etc. Now, I did not post my comment to start a religious debate, although I love discussing religion. My faith has made me very happy with my life.

My main purpose for this comment is to simply point out that I do not put my sexuality in peoples’ faces. In fact, I prefer to not talk about homosexuality because so many have stereotypes about it. I am one of those people who you mentioned who just does not pay attention to it. Unlike so many people, I just do not see it as important. My half-sister often assumes or just wonders if certain guys she sees are homosexual. I find that to be very annoying because I wonder, “Why does it even matter?”

Thank you for responding to my comment. I was hoping you would not assume it was more leftist hate-mail. I have a deep love for the Confederacy, and wish to learn much from this website. I am also a traditional conservative. I was wondering if you would be willing to have conversations with me in regards to different Southern topics if I send you a friend request on Facebook. I get all of my information from my own research, and it would be very nice if I had someone of your expertise to turn to for advice on certain subjects.

Good to hear back from you, Andre. I would welcome any discussion on Southern topics. I try to limit my Facebook activity to family, “real world” friends, and church family, but thank you for offering. In addition, I’ve found that when I start off-site conversations, they often turn out to be quite interesting and I end up wishing that it was available to all.

I have added a new page to the site – you’ll see “Q & A” on the menu. I like the idea and I appreciate you prompting that addition. Let’s see where it goes from here.

Sorry for coming late to the party, folks, but life has been more than a little hectic recently.

There was a church-based organisation for boys, established in Glasgow, Scotland in the 1880’s called The Boys’ Brigade. It tended to be associated with Presbyterian and other free churches, rather than with either Roman Catholic or episcopalian churches. It was explicitly set up to provide a Christian framework for boys’ benefit. It may be an alternative to the Boy Scouts.

On the matter of homosexuality, I think we all need to be very clear about what our terms mean. I would use the term homosexuality to describe a sexual orientation and be clear when I was discussing homo-erotic behaviour. What I agree with Stephen on is that homo-erotic behaviour is an abomination to God, while I would not say that of the orientation. The Bible makes clear that all sexual activity outside marriage is sin, and despite what any legal system calls it, a union between two people of the same sex is not a marriage. The Bible also calls on us to love our neighbour. In the context of loving neighbours who are of homosexual orientation, I would commend to your reading the article by Professor Robert Gagnon and others on Theology Matters at http://www.theologymatters.com/MayJun05.pdf

Hey “Bonnie Blue”,
re the boys brigade:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys'_Brigade with associated links.
Whilst in Rosyth, Scotland (a “few days” ago) i had opportunity to speak to the girls brigade – it seemed to me at the time it was somehow associated with the schools but i could be wrong. Anywho a neat concept but your point to Scouting equivalent of Home-schooling is a good’n. My Dad & i were in the indian guides which was associated with the YMCA back in the 50’s\60’s.